LUCIAN BLAGA UNIVERSITY from SIBIU HYSTORY AND PATRIMONY FACULTY ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL HISTORY DEPARTMENT

PETREŞTI CULTURE

Phd Thesis Abstract

SCIENTIFIC COORDINATOR PhD STUDENT

PROF. UNIV DR. SORIN TINCU

GHEORGHE LAZAROVICI

SIBIU 2011

2

SUMMARY

Introduction 4-6

I. Work method. Data bases and information, catalogues and dictionaries.

I.1 Work method. General presentation 7-6

I.2 Dictionaries of the Petreşti culture pottery 7-39

II.3 Catalogues of the Petreşti culture pottery 39-71

II. Copper and gold metallurgy within the Carpathian-Danube region

II.1 The Carpathian-Danube region – Definition 72

II.2 Terminology problems: Eneolithic, Chalcolithic, Copper Age 72-76

II.3 Periodization of the Copper Age in Romania 76-81

II.4 Copper metallurgy 81-88

II.5 Copper processing 88-93

II.6 Copper resources in the Carpathian-Danube area 93-101

II.7 Gold processing 102-107

III. The Petreşti culture. General concepts

III.1 The name of the culture 108-109

III.2 The origin of the culture 109-119

III.3 The evolution of the culture 120-123

III.4 Spread of the Petreşti culture 123-173

III.5 Stratigraphy 173-181

III.6 Elements of relative and absolute chronology 182-188

IV. The material culture

IV.1 Settlements 189-191

IV.2 Fortifications 192-195

3

IV.3 Cave dwelling 195-196

IV.4 Houses 196-199

IV.5 Housing interior 199-206

IV.6 Sizes 206-207

IV.7 Other types of dwellings 208-209

IV.8 Pantry. Annexes 209-210

IV.9 Decorative elements 211-212

IV.10 Pits 212-214

IV.11 Artifacts. Ornaments 214-228

IV.12 The lithic industry 229-232

IV.13 The bone industry 233-237

IV.14 Clay tools 237-240

IV.15 Jewelry 240-242

IV.16 The pottery 242-291

IV.17 The economics 291-296

V. The spiritual and social life

V.1 Burials 297-300

V.2 The cultic complexes 300-302

V.3 The small altars 302-304

V.4 Ritual deposits 304-306

V.5 Foundation and abandonment rituals 306-307

V.6 The plastic art 307-318

V.7 Signs and symbols 318-319

VI. Conclusions 319-322

Abbreviations

Bibliography

List of plates

4

The name of the culture

Along the time this archaeological culture has been known under different

names. During the first half of the twentieth century several names were used, such as:

“the west Romanian painted pottery culture”1, “the central Transylvanian culture”

(mittlesiebenbürgische bemalte Keramik)”2, “the civilization with painted pottery from

the western Dacian circle”3 and “the central Transylvanian circle with painted

pottery”4.

In their 1949 study D. and I. Berciu propose replacing all these terms with

“Petreşti-type painted pottery”5; their argument was that “the civilization with painted

pottery from the western Dacian circle” did not entirely correspond to the historic-

geographical notion of western Dacian circle; “the central Transylvanian circle with

painted pottery” was no longer actual since its spreading area was well over the

boundaries of Transylvania; the archaeological site Petreşti – Groapa Galbenă was

considered at the moment the most representative for the culture; it is where the most

numerous pottery shards came from, as well as the most varied in terms of in shape,

technique and decor6.

All these arguments made the scientists embrace the name of the culture, a fact

which later on will lead to the generalization of the expression “Petreşti culture”7. At the

same time we notice in some specialty papers titles such as “the Petreşti culture of the

central Transylvanian painted pottery”8, which illustrates the transition from the old

terminology to the definitive one – “Petreşti culture”9. The term “culture” was later

1 Paul 1992, 7; Draşovean 1999, 5. 2 Horedt 1949, 47. 3 Berciu-Berciu 1946, 53; Paul 1992, 7; Draşovean 1999, 5. 4 Berciu-Berciu 1949, 41; Vlassa 1967, 420; Paul 1992, 7; Draşovean 1999, 5; NiŃu 2006, 15. 5 Berciu-Berciu 1949, 41; Draşovean 1999, 5. 6 Berciu-Berciu 1949, 41. 7 Istoria Romîniei 1960, 70; Berciu 1961, 15; Paul 1992. 8 Dumitrescu 1974a, 74; NiŃu 2006, 15. 9 NiŃu 2006, 15.

5

criticized by N. Vlassa, who thought that the expression to be used was “the Petreşti

cultural complex”10.

The origins of the culture

The opinions expressed along the time about this aspect of the Petreşti culture

might be grouped in two categories: autochthonous (which consider that the basis of

this culture is represented by older local elements) and migratory (according to which

the origins of the culture must be in the southern areas of the Balkans).

The autochthonous opinions were formulated by D. Berciu, who saw the origins

of Petreşti culture within the cultural complex Starčevo-Criş, which transmitted the

technique of applying the paint before firing the vessel, by way of Vinča and Turdaş

groups11 and also by N. Vlassa, who considers “a more logical and prudent hypothesis

an organic development from the Turdaş culture, through its evolutive stages Tărtăria -

Tăualaş and Lumea – Nouă”12.

The first migratory theory was expressed by H. Schroller in the thirties. He

proposed a Dimini migration in Transylvania, based exclusively on typological and

stylistic criteria. Fr. Schachermeyr also supports the migratory theory, trying to prove

that the “Dimini migration” started north of the Danube from an area of the Bükk, Tisa

and west-Romanian painted pottery cultures. Both these theories were combated by Vl.

Dumitrescu in the seventies13. He later attributes a “certain part” in the birth of the

Petreşti culture to some aspects of painted pottery torn off the Tisa culture14.

Also supporting the migratory theory was S. Marinescu-Bâlcu, who proposes that

the migratory itinerary of the bearers of the southern group was “through Oltenia”, an

identical itinerary to the one of the Neolithic early Starčevo-Criş communities.

Ruth Tringham comes up with a totally different theory. She sees influences of

the Herpaly group within the décor of the Petreşti culture, but she did not exclude the

rather different eventuality: Petreşti influencing the Herpaly group’s pottery15.

10 Vlassa 1967, 413. 11 Berciu 1967, 189; Paul 1977, 24; 1992, p. 119; Luca et alii. 2004, 111; NiŃu 2006, 15-16. 12 Vlassa 1967, 419-420; Paul 1992, 119; Luca et alii. 2004, 111. 13 Dumitrescu 1960, 189-200; Paul 1992, 7. 14 Dumitrescu 1974a, 76. 15 Tringham 1971, 188-189.

6

A similar affirmation was made by S.A. Luca, who also claims that the origins of

the Petreşti culture must be searched within the Herpaly culture16.

In reference to the origin problem, in his monograph dedicated to the culture, I.

Paul does not finish the discussion, but inclines toward a local development based on

southern, older elements. The similarity between certain categories of the early painted

Petreşti pottery from Păuca and Daia Română with the ones in phase IA1 from Kum-

Tepe, continuing with the ones from Otzaki and Dimini with phases A-B and B of the

Petreşti culture are considered as “convergence phenomena that are generated in

different places and periods, by the common Anatolian-Micro Asian origin of the

Balkan-Danubian Neo-Eneolithic as well as numerous contacts and interferences

between several groups and complexes in different areas”17. Concluding, the author

claims “without fear of failing” that “it [the Petreşti culture] was born on a general

Neolithic background, originating in the Aegean-Anatolian-Micro Asian area”18, but at

the same time it is the result of “independent and original development” but also of

“continuous and complex influences”, with cultural manifestations in neighboring areas.

Also the author does not exclude some further away influences due to the exchanges,

direct cultural contributions or some migrations19.

A. Agotha, K. Germann and Fr. Resch have excavated in 1968 some surfaces in

the settlement of ParŃa – tell 2 (west part of ParŃa). They discovered some pottery shards

that they have attributed at the moment to the Petreşti culture20. Later on several other

pottery fragments were uncovered in other sites in Banat: Foeni–The Orthodox

cemetery21,Chişoda Veche22, ParŃa23, Unip24, etc. they were initially considered as

imports inside the Vinça area and were framed within phase A-B of the Petreşti culture.

As a result of the researches in Banat, which have defined “the shock” Vinča C,

the scientists emitted the hypothesis that the Petreşti culture has more common elements

16 Luca 1999, 16. 17 Paul 1992, 123. 18 Ibidem, 124. 19 Ibidem, 125. 20 Lazarovici 1976, 1/5-7; 1979, 166-167; Draşovean 1999, 5. 21 MedeleŃ, Bugilan 1987, 132, note 71; Draşovean 1999, 5. 22 Draşovean 1999, 6. 23 Ibidem, 10-11. 24 Ibidem, 12-13.

7

with the Neolithic civilizations in Macedonia, Thessalia and Thrace şi Tracia than with

the local ones25. But the lack of solid arguments supporting these theories has lead to

their rejection.

The archaeological research in Foeni – The Orthodox cemetery (a Petreşti

settlement without any Vinča C elements26) had separated the unpainted and without any

Banat specific shapes Petreşti pottery from phase C of the Vinča culture27. Until that

moment all these ceramic materials were considered belonging to the Vinča culture

while only the painted shards were treated as Petreşti imports into the environment28.

Of course, when the unpainted pottery proved to belong to the Petreşti culture, the

scientists have tried to frame the materials into one of its evolution phases. Initially the

materials were framed in phase A29, but later on this kind of pottery was considered as

belonging to a separate cultural group, which was called either Petreşti A / Foeni30, Foeni

- Mintia31, “Foeni cultural aspect”32, or, simply Foeni33. The Lazarovici family think that

in Banat the evolution of the culture is not toward a classic phase A of the Petreşti

culture, or toward phases AB and B for that matter, the more appropriate denomination

would be group Foeni – Petreşti A, or rather just the Foeni group, because the movement is

from Foeni to Petreşti. They also reject the name Mintia – Foeni because “although there

are clear observations, they do not appear to explain the phenomenon and the excavations are

on a very small area”34. My opinion is that the cultural manifestations named Foeni

(Foeni-Mintia) represent a cultural group with southern origins, which is connected to the

Petreşti culture through genetics (the Foeni group represents the main genetic element of

the Petreşti culture). I consider that the association Petreşti A/ the Foeni is only necessary

in the current stage of research, as the separation between the Foeni pottery and the Early

Petreşti one is just being done.

25 Lazarovici 1987, 33- 55. 26 Draşovean 1996, 85. 27 Ibidem; 12. 28 Lazarovici 1979, 166; Draşovean 1996, 85; 1999, p. 11. 29 Draşovean 1999, 14. 30 Draşovean 1996, 86; Luca 2001, 44; Luca et alii. 2004, 113. 31 Luca 1999, 14-16; 2001, 144; 2003, 221-223; Luca et alii. 2004, 89; Roman, Diaconescu 2004, 68. 32 Maxim 1999, 103. 33 Draşovean 1996, 86; Luca 1996, 25- 26; 1997, 74- 75; Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2003, 409; Roman, Diaconescu 2004, 68. 34 Lazarovici-Lazarovici 2007, 40.

8

The spread of the culture

Once the researches became familiarized with the pottery of the Foeni group

(Foeni-Mintia) and once they reanalyzed the archaeological materials from older

excavations, they were able to trace the itinerary of these communities in Transylvania,

as well as understanding their part in the genesis of the Petreşti culture and of Ariuşd

group. Discoveries attributed to this group were found in Banat and Transylvania, from

Brănişca and Mintia on the Mureş Valley, all the way to the northern province in

Archiud35.

The Petreşti settlements are found exclusively in Transylvania, on the Mureş,

Târnava, Someşul Mic Valleys and their tributaries, reaching south, to the Olt river.

The evolution

Following the researches in Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă the evolution of the Foeni

group in three phases: I, II and III. With phase Foeni III36, it is clear that these

communities have their own evolution, which is influenced by the cultural realities of

Transylvania and is radically different than phases I and II. The major differences

between the pottery technology of the last phase, in comparison with the first ones, and

the similarities between phase III of Foeni and the Petreşti pottery, determine me to

consider this moment as the one marking the birth of the Petreşti culture rather than a

third phase in the evolution of the Foeni group.

The Petreşti culture was divided into three evolutionary phases (A, A-B and B),

similar with the Cucuteni culture37. The new archaeological realities of Transylvania and

Banat have determined a significant shortening of the first phase (A) in the Petreşti

evolution. We consider that the first manifestations of the Petreşti culture appear once

some typical Foeni group decors have disappeared and a series of changes in pottery

technologies appeared. Another important element that marks this moment is the

appearance of the tri-chromic painted pottery.

35 Gligor 2010. 36 Gligor 2009, 139. 37 Paul 1992

9

Cultural synchronisms

Based on imports from other cultural areas inside the Petreşti culture, based on Petreşti

imports into other cultures but also on C14 data38, I propose the following synchronisms:

Foeni – Early/ classic Herpaly – classic Tisa (III) – Precucuteni I/II – Vinča C2-C3.

Petreşti A – Final Herpaly – Cucuteni A1 – GumelniŃa A1- SălcuŃa I - Vinča D1.

Petreşti AB (final)-B (beginning) - Tiszapolgár A - Cucuteni A2 - GumelniŃa A2 -

SălcuŃa IIa-b – Vinča D1(final)-D2 (beginning).

Petreşti B - Tiszapolgár B - Cucuteni A3 – GumelniŃa A2-B1 (început) - SălcuŃa IIc-III

(beginning) – Vinča D2.

Petreşti B (final)(?) - Decea Mureşului – Early Bodrogkersztur - Cucuteni A4-AB1

(beginning)? – GumelniŃa B1 – SălcuŃa III.

The settlements

Based on the discoveries repertoire 233 points with discoveries from this culture

and the Foeni group have been identified, but also finds belonging to synthesis with the

Iclod group and Tiszapolgár culture. From a geographical point of view it easily

noticeable that the bearers of the Petreşti culture have settled the Mureş Valley, the

Transylvanian Plateau and Field.

The Petreşti settlements were placed either along water courses, either close to

streams. The environmental transformations allowed in time that these communities

would occupy different relief forms39. During the early phases they preferred low and

middle terraces along water courses, sometimes tributary valleys, sunny clearings on

slightly high slopes, seldom flanked by ravines formed by torrents or streams40. As the

population grew the habitation patterns change radically, by building new houses,

gradually occupying the bigger part of the hill41. Long phase A-B this type of habitation

has evolved to the shape of opened, large settlements which occupied both the low and

38 Baza Sibiu 39 Paul 1992, 16. 40 Ibidem, 17. 41 Ibidem.

10

middle terraces and the lower part of the slopes and hills42. The vast open space of these

large terraces has allowed an “oscillation” of the settlement core. Along with this

phenomenon another was documented: “swarming”, when a portion of the population

tore itself away from the “mother” settlement and settles somewhere near it43. This lead

to an increase of the Petreşti settlements’ density since the middle phases (A-B) and late

phase (B) of the culture. During the final stage (B), there are also settlements on hills,

like the one from Agârbiciu - Păşunea din deal. The settlement is 700 m above sea level,

in a clearing reach in streams44.

Dwellings

In Banat, in dwellings belonging to the Foeni group the type of habitation is the

one with stepped access pits for planting the support pillars. This kind of housing system

has analogies at Gomolava, within the Vinča C45. the bearers of this cultural group use

above the ground dwellings, but also semi-buried houses46.

The Petreşti culture communities preferred:

Dwellings with platforms set on wooden beams or stone slabs

This kind of houses was documented at Ghirbom and Tărtăria. Each house

discovered respectively in these two sites illustrates the use of the above mentioned

housing system, but with a significant difference: the wooden and clay platforms were set

on massive boulders or stone slabs47.

Dwellings with platforms set on wooden pillars

This type of dwelling may be totally or partially suspended, according to the

terrain. At Tărtăria N. Vlassa published a trench profile with a Petreşti layer were one can

notice a dwelling floor which was interrupted from place to place. Prof. Gh. Lazarovici

42 Ibidem. 43 Ibidem, 18. 44 Paul 1992, 20-21. 45 Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2007, 43. 46 Ibidem. 47 Ibidem.

11

thinks this is a suspended floor and the traces of the pillars have remained in the profile48.

Another such big sized dwelling was documented at MihalŃ – MăticuŃa49.

Platform dwelling set on the ground

This type of dwelling with a wooden beams floor, set directly on the ground, over

which a layer of clay was set, was documented in settlements belonging to the latest

phase of Petreşti culture, such as Hălmeag-Valea MâŃii50 and Moşna-Pe tablă51.

Although the Petreşti culture bearers preferred these kinds of housing systems, at

AmpoiŃa has been documented a semi-plunged dwelling (C. 3/2001)52, belonging to

Petreşti phase B, while at Lumea Nouă, the AmpoiŃan property the archaeologists

uncovered a buried dwelling with archaeological materials belonging to phase A-B of the

culture53.

By analyzing the image and description of the dwelling in CaşolŃ–Poiana în pisc,

Prof. Gh. Lazarovici considers that the architectural elements the archaeologist has

interpreted as the walls could actually belong to a floor of a second storey; this because

the structure of the elements seems to be very compact. The adobe found outside may

come from walls. The floor was made of well set it dirt, the same as in Zau, both in the

Neolithic and the Petreşti levels. As for the pit nearby the house, which was considered a

buried house, he thinks I could very well be either a storage pit, or a buried house54.

Concluding, we can say that the Petreşti communities have used a lot of dwelling

types, starting with the surface ones with the floor set directly on the ground, or houses

on platforms of stones, or on pillars, as well as semi-buried or buried houses. The most

complex representatives of domestic architecture are the houses with two floors.

48 Ibidem. 49 Paul 1975, 15. 50 Costea 2008, 12. 51 Gonciar et alii 2007, 45. 52 Ciugudean, Gligor 2002. 53 Gligor et alii 2006. 54 Lazarovici 2007, 45.

12

Size of the dwellings

There is a great variety of sizes, dictated by the needs as well as by the terrain.

Iuliu Paul claims that during the first phase (A) of evolution the houses have medium

sizes: 3 x 4 or 4 x 6 m55. For some dwellings, the information is unclear, since they were

not sufficiently thorough described, or the details are actually missing. At La Alba Iulia –

Lumea Nouă, on the Colda property, the house was NE-SV oriented, it belonged to phase

AB and had a size of 8 m, that includes it in the big houses category56. At AmpoiŃa, the

surface dwelling was sized 4 x 2.5 m and the one at CaşolŃ, coded L2 is sized 8 x 4 m57.

The biggest surface attributed to a Petreşti dwelling is at MihalŃ - MăticuŃa. According to

the author of the archaeological investigations the surface is 10 x 7-8 m, the house is E-V

oriented and it was suspended on pillars58.

Decorative elements

The author of the monograph dedicated to the Petreşti culture remarked since

1967 the people of this culture’s preoccupations for decorating the walls of their houses

by smoothing them but also by applying relieved decors59.

In dwelling L2/1994-1996 from Turdaş/Luncă among other architectonic

elements, the archaeologists uncovered the lintel of a door, above which a decorative

element has been placed: a frieze with a bull’s head flanked by circular applications.

Pantry, cellar, annexes

Sometimes pits of regular or irregular shapes are discovered very close to the

houses. The regularly shaped ones, by shape, depth, size or inventory, may have been

pantries, cellars or supply pits. The biggest of them, with wall as high as 70 cm could

have served as central pits for buried houses, an area were the inhabitants could stand;

they were often mistaken as supply pits. Their functionality is actually hard to define and

doesn’t stay the same, changing according to needs and seasons. Often when they are

deep, they need or have a “parlour” for access or to keep rain water from flooding in.

55 Paul 1992, 22-37. 56 Gligor 2009, 36. 57 Paul 1961, 100. 58 Paul 1975, 15. 59 Paul 1967, 12, 18.

13

At Lumea Nouă, next to complex 1 in trench SI/2002, there is a pit of immediate

size, a fact which would assume the existence of a common roof. In this case the space

could have functioned as a pantry. On the same site, on the Moldovan property the

archaeologists mention an annex (G1 la B1/Sp III/2006)60.

These annexes were placed next to the houses as well (Fig. 72), as is the case at

CaşolŃ– Poiana în pisc, according to Gh. and Magda Lazarovici. Their shape is that of a

construction. The presence of a hearth does not mean that the site could be necessarily a

house, as pantries often need hearths61.

Pits

During the archaeological excavations in Neo-Eneolithic sites a significant

percent of the researched complexes are represented by pits. Of course, the pits were dug

for different reasons, fact which divides them into categories. As for the stages of such a

complex, scientists agree on four of them: 1. digging, 2. using them for their purpose, 3.

abandonment, 4. filling62. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule. Therefore, a pit for

extracting clay never reaches stage 2, while the graves never reach stage three.

Fortifications

In the past there never were documented any ditches or other defense systems63.

The new excavations at Zau de Câmpie - GrădiniŃă, Alba Iulia - Lumea Nouă and

Hunedoara - Judecătorie, have documented a series of defense ditches and palisade

system. Prof. Gh. Lazarovici thinks that sometimes the settlements placed on small hills

or terraces were very likely defended with palisades on the edges or where the slope was

more accentuated64.

At Săsciori, Alba County, M. Blăjan mentions a Petreşti settlement that was

surrounded by a defensive ditch and vallum65. Considering that this research was a

surface one, one must take reserve in believing this affirmation.

60 Gligor et alii 2007, 45. 61 Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2007, 47. 62 Diaconescu 2009, 156. 63 Paul 1992, 21. 64 Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2007, 40. 65 Rep. Alba 1995, 165.

14

Material culture

The most important part of the material culture is represented by pottery (123

shapes of vessels, divided into 32 types, 6 types of support vessels and 11 types of lids.

The main way of decorating the vessels was by painting them with different

shades of red, but also, during the first phase with tri-chromatic shades, later on using

different shades of brown and black. If during the first phase the main decorative motifs

are geometrical (probably inherited from the Foeni group), starting with the second phase

(AB) the main motifs that are generally used are spirals, meanders, rhombs and network.

Even though the main decors were painted, we must not exclude the decorations

with incisions, imprints, applications, perforations and decorations using a spatula. It is

remarkable that the Petreşti culture pottery does not have any polished decors, one of the

main attributes of the Foeni group.

Other artifacts must be placed next to pottery inside the material culture:

bone/antler tools (piercers, spatulas, spoons), clay tools (weights for the loom or fishing

nets, spindles, buttons and tools for finishing the pottery), stone tools (weights for the

loom, pendants, blades and an entire typology of axes) and metal tools (different copper

tools, the most technologically advanced of them being the Pločnik type axes. The

discovery of a golden tube at Moşna-Tablă proves that this metal was used during the late

phases A-B and B of the Petreşti culture).

Economics

Plant cultivation

The analyses on archaeobotanical remais from Cheile Turzii-Peştera Ungurească

and Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă are extremely important.

From the complexes in Lumea Nouă belonging to the Foeni group and the Petreşti

culture several archaeobotanical remains were preserved: from the Foeni complexes the

following species were identified: Cerealia, Chenopodium album, Spergula arvensis,

Vicia ervilia. From the Petreşti complexes the Cerealia şi Triticum dicoccum66 were

66 Ciută 2009, 87.

15

identified. The cultivation of cereals was documented by the imprints on a vessel base

discovered at Lumea Nouă67.

Another category of plants, just as important as the cereals are various vegetables.

At Lumea Nouă, these are represented by Vicia ervilia, bitter lathyrus68. Chenopodium

album is another largely used species. Each plant produces a large quantity of seeds,

which makes it highly important69.

Animal husbandry

The studies on archaeozoological remains at Foeni, Zau de Câmpie, Lumea Nouă,

Miercurea Sibiului, Tărtăria etc. documented the presence of the next species: cattle,

sheep or goats, pigs and dogs. Their percent differs from one site to another, according to

the area, the preferences of the respective communities or the ampleness of the

archaeological research etc.

The hunt

This represented an important component for the Petreşti communities. The

presence and intensity of this activity is quantified according to the remains of wild

species. The ones documented in Tărtăria and Turdaş are: the stag, the buffalo, the boar

and the deer.

Spiritual life

Burials

Archaeologists never uncovered cemeteries of groups of graves belonging to the

Petreşti culture. Until recently the same was for the Foeni group, with just two graves

discovered: at ParŃa II and Foeni - Cimitirul Ortodox70. The discovery at Lumea Nouă of

some common grave pits/ ossuaries could explain the lack of graves.

Seven graves belonging to the Petreşti culture have been discovered: 1 at Tărtăria-

Gura Luncii, 1 at Daia Română-PărăuŃ, 1 at Ocna Sibiului and 4 at Noşlac. The

67 Gligor 2009, Pl. CLXII. 68 Ciută 2009, 85. 69 Ibidem. 70 Draşovean 2004, 129-131.

16

anthropological data offer this: 1 belongs to a child, 1 to an adolescent, 1 to an

approximately 50 years old individual, while the others are unprocessed.

At La Alba Iulia - Lumea Nouă, in trench Sp. VI/2005- the Sobaru property, in

ditch Şt.2/2005, documented in trench S I, at the depth of – 1.7 m, one set of human

remains have been discovered. The archaeologist dated them “at the latest in the Petreşti

culture”71. The situation documented here was not joined with the Petreşti funerals

because the position of the skeleton more likely suggest it was rather thrown into the

ditch and not placed according to some funerary ritual72. We can say the same thing about

the individual discovered at Moşna-Tablă, whose bones were scattered on a 2 m2 radius.

Cultic complexes

Such arrangements were discovered in three Petreşti settlements: Pianu de Jos-

Podei, Ghirbom - În faŃă şi Uioara de Jos73.

Foundation and abandonment rituals

In the Foeni group levels, rituals connected to the foundation of a site could be the

animal deposits at Zau de Câmpie, pit 4, pit 19 (bull trophies)74. Also, in complex G1 in

trench Sp. I/2006, compartment A2, at a depth of -1.7 m the archaeologists uncovered a

stones and bull antlers concourse, while in compartment A3 they discovered a bull skull

and antlers75.

Belonging to the Petreşti culture, at Turdaş - Luncă, the archaeologists researched

a foundation complex of house L2/1994-1995. Its central piece consisted of a sandstone

object, interpreted as a human head76.

Two ritual pits (pits 7 and 8) are mentioned in the settlement at Moşna-Tablă77,

attributed to the phases A-B of the Petreşti culture. The presence of complete vessels on

the bottom of these pits supports the possibility that these pits are actually part of a

foundation ritual. 71 Gligor 2009, 40. 72 Ibidem. 73 Gligor 2007, 67; Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2007, 6. 74 Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2002, fig. 86; Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2007, 58. 75 Gligor 2009, 43. 76 Luca 2001, 47. 77 Gonciar et alii , 44.

17

Plastic art

Prof. I. Paul has attempted a periodization of the plastic art, based on stratigraphic

criteria and the association with the painted pottery. The discovery at Brănişca-Pe Hotar

of some anthropomorphic statuettes decorated in a manner specific to the late phase (B)

of the Petreşti culture which is not documented within the respective settlement might

represent a stage of research, but at the same time it is very possible that this type o décor

with pricks and small incised arcades that imitate clothing, is present on statuettes

belonging to the earliest phase, as pottery shards belonging to this phase together with

materials belonging to the Foeni group were discovered78. In conclusion, I. Paul’s

division of the anthropological representations within the Petreşti culture must be treated

prudently.

Absolute chronology

Unfortunately, no C14 data were done for the Petreşti culture. The specimens from

Daia Română-PărăuŃ, along with the fact that are almost useless, come from contexts that

were chronologically attributed to the Foeni group, or even to the Turdaş culture.

According to data from the area of the Foeni group, and neighboring cultures that came

into contact with it, I prudently consider that its evolution ranges between 4600/4500 and

4100/4000 CAL. B.C79.

78 Tincu 2011 to be published. 79 I have estimated as upper limit the C14 data for the toarte pastilate level in din Cheile Turzii-Peştera Ungurească: GrN-29102: 5120±40BP = 3980BC (28.9%) 3930BC- 3880BC (39.3%) 3810BC. (apud Buzea Dan, PhD thesis: Aşezarea de la Păuleni Ciuc – Ciomortan. Rolul şi locul ei în cadrul eneoliticului din CarpaŃii Răsăriteni, p. 414, annex 16.

18

ABBVREVIATIONS

ActaMN Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca. ActaMP Acta Musei Porolissensis, Zalău. Angustia Angustia, Sfântu Gheorghe. AnB Analele Banatului, Timisoara. ArchErt Archaeologiai Ertesito, Budapest. AUA Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Antaeus Antaeus, Budapest. Apulum Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia. AR Archeologické rozhledy, Praga. ArchErt Archaeologiai Értesitö, Budapest. BAR Brittish Archaeological Reports. BCSS Buletunul Cercurilor Stiinşifice StudenŃeşti, Alba Iulia. BHAB Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, Timisoara. BMA Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia. BB Bibliotheca Brukenthal, Sibiu. BS Septemcastrensis, Sibiu. Corviniana Corviniana. Acta Musei Corvinensis, Hunedoara. EJA European Journal of Archeology, Oxford. ITSR Istorie si traditie in spatiul romanesc, Sibiu JAMÉ A Jósa András Múseum Évkönyve, Nyíregyhá. MemA Memoria Antiquitatis, Piatra Neamt. Tibiscum Tibiscum, Caransebes. Tibiscus Tibiscus. Timisoara PBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde, München. PZ Prähistoriche Zeitschrift, Berlin-Leipzig. SCIV(A) Studii şi Comunicări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie, Bucureşti. StComCar Studii şi Comunicări de etnografie-istorie, Caransebes. Swiatowit Swiatowit, Varsovie. RepAlba Repertoriul arheologic al judeŃului Alba, 1995.

19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anghel 2000 Anghel Dan, InfluenŃa condiŃiilor de ardere asupra ceramicii, în BCSS, 6, 2000, pp. 171-173

Bánffy 1994 Bánffy Eszter, Transdanubia and eastern Hungary in early Copper Age, în JAMÉ 36, 291-296.

Berciu 1961 Berciu Dumitru, ContribuŃii la problemele neoliticului din România în lumina noilor cercetări, Bucureşti, 1961.

Berciu 1967 La izvoarele istoriei, Bucuresti, 1961. Berciu-Berciu 1946 Berciu Dumitru, Berciu Ion, Cercetări şi săpături arheologice în

judeŃele Turda şi Alba, în Apulum II, 1946, 1-81. 1949 Săpături şi cercetări arheologice în anii 1944-1947, în Apulum III,

1949, 1-44. Beşliu-Lazarovici

1990 Beşliu Călin; Lazarovici Gheorghe, Über die vorgeschichtiche Kupfer-Analysen aus Transylvanien, în Ancient mining and metallurgy in South-East Europe, International Symposium, Donji Milanovac, 20-25 mai, pp. 111-141.

Beşliu-Lazarovici-Olariu

1992 Beşliu Călin; Lazarovici Gheorghe; Olariu Agatha, O piesă de cupru din Sălaj şi câteva probleme toretice privind analizele de cupru preistoric în Muzeul din Cluj, în ActaMP XVI, 1992, pp. 97-128.

Blăjan Blăjan Mihai, Asezarea de tip Petresti de la Turdas (jud. Alba) in ActaMN, XII, p. 35-43, fig. 1-17,

Ciugudean 2001 Ciugudean Horia, AmpoiŃa, com. Meteş, jud. Alba Punct: La Pietre, CCA 2001

2002 Ciugudean Horia, AmpoiŃa, com. Meteş, jud. Alba Punct: La Pietre, CCA 2002

Ciută 2009 Ciută Beatrice, Cultivarea plantelor în pre- si protoistoria bazinului intracarpatic din România, Sibiu 2009

Dammers 2009 Dammers Barbara, Ceramics and cultural Identity between the Balkans and Middle Europe: Vinča C Site od Uivar, în Ten years after: The Neolithic of the Balkans, as uncovered by the last decade of research, Timişoara 2009, p. 235-258.

Diaconescu 2009 Diaconescu Dragoş, Cultura Tiszapolgár în România, în BB XLI, Sibiu, 2009.

Diaconescu 2010 Metalurgia cuprului în perioada culturii Tiszapolgár, cu privire

specială asupra descoperirilor de pe teritoriul României, în

Corviniana XIII, 2010, pp.41-91

Dragotă et alii 1999 Dragotă Aurel, Roman Cristian/Constantin, Tiplic Marian, Descoperiri arheologice în judeŃele Sibiu, Alba şi Hunedoara, Apulum XXXVI, 1999, p. 81-96.

Draşovean 1994 Draşovean Florin, The Petreşti culture in Banat, în AnBan, 3, 1994, p. 139-170.

1996 Cultura Vinča târzie (faza C) în Banat, în BHAB, I, 1996. 1997 Die Petreşti-Kultur im Banat, în PZ, 72, 1, 1997, p. 54-88. 1999 Cultura Petreşti în Banat, în Studii privind aşezările preistorice în

arealul Tisa-Mureşul inferior, Timişoara, 1999. 2003 Transilvania şi Banatul în neoliticul târziu. O contribuŃie la originile

20

culturii Petreşti, în Apulum XL, 2003, p. 39-58. 2004 Transylvania and Banat in the late neolithic. The origins of the

Petreşti culture, în Antaeus, 27, 2004, p. 27-36. 2005 Zona thessalo-macedoneană şi Dunărea mijlocie la sfârşitul

mileniului al VI-lea şi începutul mileniului al V-lea a Chr, în Apulum, XLII, 2005, p. 12-26.

2009 Cultural relationships in the late neolithic of the Late Neolithic of Banat, în Ten years after: The Neolithic of the Balkans, as uncovered by the last decade of research, Timişoara 2009, p. 235-239.

Draşovean- Rotea

1986 Draşovean Florin – Rotea Mihai, Aşezarea neolitică de la Şoimuş. ContribuŃii la neoliticul târziu din sud-vestul Transilvaniei, în Apulum XXIII 1986, 9-25.

Draşovean- Luca

1990 Draşovean Florin – Luca Sabin Adrian, ConsideraŃii preliminare asupra materialelor neo-eneolitice din aşezarea de la Mintia (com. VeŃel, jud. Hunedoara), în SCIVA, 41, 1, 1990, 7-18.

Dumitrescu 1960 Dumitrescu Vladimir, Peut-on admettre-du point de vue chronologique-une participations des tribes de la civilizations à la ceramique peint ouest-transylvaine à la “migration Dimini”? în Swiatowit, 23, 1960, p. 189-200.

1974 Cronologia absolută a eneoliticului românesc în lumina datelor C14, în Apulum XII, 1974, 23-40.

1974a Arta preistorică în România, Bucuresti, 1974. Garstang 1953 Garstang John, Prehistoric Mersin Yümük Yepe in southern Turkey,

1953. Gligor 2000 Gligor Mihai, RelaŃia cadru geografic-habitat. Aşezările aparŃinând

culturii Petreşti din bazinul Mureşului mijlociu,în Apulum XXXVII-1, 2000, pp. 133-149.

2003 O figurină antropomorfă aparŃinând culturii Petreşti de la Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă, în SargeŃia XXXI, 2003, pp. 51-60.

2004 OntribuŃii la repertoriul descoperirilor aparŃinând culturii Petreşti din bazinul Mureşului mijlociu, în AMP, XXVI, 2004, 17-39.

2006 ConsideraŃii privitoare la neoliticul târziu/eneoliticul timpuriu din SV Transilvaniei. Materialele ceramice de la Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă, în Apulum XLIII-1, 2006, pp. 9-34.

2007 Cercetări arheologice preventive de la Alba Iulia – Lumea Nouă. O descoperire aparŃinând grupului Foeni, in Apulum, XLIV, 2007, p. 1-28.

2008 Un artefact metalic descoperit în aşezarea preistorică de la Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă, în AUA, Series Historica, 12I, 2008, pp. 167-172.

2008a Cu privire la locuirea neolitică de la Petreşti-Groapa Galbenă, în Apulum XLV, 2008, pp. 293-314.

2008b ContribuŃii la repertoriul descoperirilor aparŃinând grupului Foeni pe teritoriul României, în PA, VII-VIII, 2008, pp. 11-18.

2009 Materiale ceramice Foeni din Transilvania, în AUA, Series Historica, XIII, 2009, p. 51-57.

2009a Aşezarea neolitică şi eneolitică de la Alba Iulia – Lumea Nouă, în lumina noilor cercetări, Cluj-Napoca, 2009.

Horedt 1949 Horedt Kurt, Săpături privitoare la epoca neo- şi eneolitică, în Apulum III, 1949, 44-70.

1968 Horedt Kurt, Die Kupferzeit in Transsilvanien, in Apulum II, 1968,

21

pp. 103-116. Kalicz 1987-

1988 Culture changes in the Carpathian Basin during the Late Neolithic and Copper Age, în ArchErt 114, 1987-1988, 1, pp. 3-15

Kalicz 1992

Kalicz Nándor, The oldest metal finds in Southeastern Europe and the Carpathian Basin from the 6th to 5th millenia BC, în ArchErt 119, 1992, 1-2, pp. 3-14.

Lazarovici 1975 Lazarovici Gheorghe, Despre eneoliticul timpuriu din Banat, in Tibiscus 4, 1975, 9-31.

1976 Fragen der neolithischen Keramik im Banat, în Festschrift

für R.Pittioni, Wien 1976, S. 203-234.

1979 Neoliticul Banatului, Cluj-Napoca, 1979. 1987 Şocul Vinča C în Transilvania. (ContribuŃii la geneza eneoliticului

timpuriu), în ActaMP, XI, 1987, 33-55. Lazarovici et alii.

1995 Lazarovici Gheorghe; Pop Dana; Beşliu Călin; Olariu Agatha, Conclusions to the geochemical analyses of some cooper sources and objects, în ActaMN 31/1, pp. 209-230.

Lazarovici et alii.

2010 Lazarovici Gheorghe, Lazarovici Cornelia-Magda, Constantinescu Bogdan, Despre analizele pieselor de aur din atelierul de bijuterii de la Cheile Turzii – Peştera caprelor / Peştera ungurească

Lazarovici et alii.

2011 Lazarovici Gheorghe, Lazarovici Cornelia-Magda, Merlini Marco, Tărtăria and sacred tablets, Cluj Napoca 2011.

Lazarovici, Lazarovici

2003 Lazarovici Gheorghe-Lazarovici Cornelia-Magda, The Neo- Eneolithic Architecture in Banat, Transylvania and Moldavia, în Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, Thessaloniki, 2003, 369-486.

2005 ContribuŃii privind arhitectura neoliticului din Banat, Crişana şi Transilvania, în Cultură şi civilizaŃie la Dunărea de jos, XXII, 2005, pp. 309-420.

2007 Arhitectura neoliticului si epocii cuprului din Romania. II. Epoca cuprului, Iasi, 2007.

Lazăr 1998 Lazăr Valeriu, AntichităŃi ale judeŃului Mureş, Târgu Mureş, 1998 Luca 1996 Luca Sabin Adrian, Încadrarea cronologică şi culturală a aşezării

neolitice de la Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor, punct X2 “, în Corviniana II, 1996, 21-29.

1996a Un complex de fundare a locuintei de la Turdaş-Luncă (jud. Hunedoara), in ITSR 2, 1996, pp. 1-6.

1997 Aşezări neolitice pe valea Mureşului I. Habitatul turdăşean de la Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor ( punct X2), în BMA, IV, 1997.

1999 Aspecte ale neoliticului şi eneoliticului din sudul şi sud-vestul Transilvaniei”, în Apulum XXXVI, 1999, 5-35.

2001 Asezări neolitice pe Valea Mureşului (II). Noi cercetări arheologice la Turdas-Luncă. I. Campaniile anilor 1992-1995, BMA XVII, Bucuresti

2003 Date noi cu privire la cronologia absolută a eneoliticului timpuriu din Transilvania. Rezultatele prelucrării probelor radiocarbon de la Orăştie- Dealul Pemilor, punct X2, jud. Hunedoara”, în Tibiscum XI, 2003, 215-230.

2003a Încă o data despre neoliticul si eneoliticul transilvanean, in Aulum 40, 2003, 73-88.

22

New discoveries of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Fine arts at Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, Tărtăria and Lumea Nouă, în Cultură şi CivilizaŃie la Dunărea de Jos (In Honorem Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu), 22, Călăraşi, 2005, 115-126

2006 A short prehistory of Transylvania, în BS, 16, Sibiu, 2006. 2006a Descoperiri arheologice din Banatul Românesc, Sibiu, 2006. 2008 Repertoriul arheologic al judeŃului Hunedoara, Sibiu 2008. Luca-Roman 1999 Luca Sabin Adrian-Roman Cristian Constantin, Materiale eneolitice

descoperite la Hunedoara-Judecatorie, Corviniana 5, 1999, 6-11. Luca et alii 2000 Luca Sabin Adrian; Ciugudean Horia; Dragotă Aurel; Roman

Cristian, Faza timpurie a culturii Vinča in Transilvania. Repere ale orizontului cronologic şi etnocultural, în Angustia 5, 2000, pp.37-72.

2004 Luca Sabin Adrian-Roman Cristian Constantin-Diaconescu Dragos, Cercetări arheologice în peştera Cauce, vol. I, în BS IV, Sibiu, 2004.

Mantu 1995 Mantu Cornelia-Magda, Câteva consideraŃii privind cronologia absolută a neo-eneoliticului din România”, în SCIVA 46, 3-4, 1995, 213-235.

1998 Cultura Cucuteni. EvoluŃie, cronologie, legături, în MemAV, Piatra-NeamŃ, 1998.

Maxim 1999 Maxim Zoia, Neo-Eneoliticul din Transilvania, Cluj-Napoca, 1999. Mareş 2002 Mareş Ioan, Metalurgia aramei în neo-eneoliticul României,

Suceava, 2002. Novotná

1977 Novotná Mariá, Neznáme nálezy medenej industrie zo Slovenska, în AR, XXIX, 1977, pp. 622-633.

Ottaway 2001 Ottaway Barbara, Innovation, production and specialization in Early Prehistoric metallurgy, in EJA, 4(1), 2001, pp.87-111.

Parkinson 2006 Parkinson William, The Social Organization of Early Copper Age Tribes an the Great Hungarian Plain, BAR 1573, 2006

Paul 1961 Paul Iuliu, Aşezarea neolitică târzie de la Poiana în Pisc, în Materiale, VII, 1961, 107-120

1962 Sondajul arheologic de la Ocna Sibiului, în MCA, VIII, 1962, pp. 193-203.

1965 Unele probleme ale neoliticului din Transilvania în legătură cu cultura Petreşti, în Revista Muzeelor, nr. 4, anul II, 1965, pp. 294-302

1967 În legătură cu problema locuinŃelor de suprafaŃă cu platformă din aşezările Petreşti şi Cucuteni-Tripolie, în SCIV, 18/1, 1967, pp. 3-24.

1968 Date noi privind raporturile reciproce dintre culturile Petreşti, Cucuteni, GumelniŃa, în Unitate şi continuitate în istoria poporului român, Bucureşti, 1968, p. 4-53.

1969 Aşezarea neo-eneolitică de la Pianul de Jos (Podei), jud. Alba, în Studii şi Comunicări, 14, Sibiu, 1969, p. 33-88

1975 Săpăturile arheologice de la MihalŃ, jud. Alba, în SCMBI, 19, 1975, pp. 9-16.

1977 Periodizarea internă a culturii Petreşti în lumina evoluŃiei ceramicii pictate, în StComB XX, 1977, 15-26.

1981 Der gegenwärtige Forschungsstand zur Petreştu-hultur, în PZ, 56, 1981, pp. 197-234.

1991 La ceramique peintede la culture, în La paléolithique et la néolithique de la Roumanie en context Européen, Iaşi, 1991, pp. 272-

23

328. 1992 Cultura Petreşti, Editura Museion, Bucureşti, 1992. 2007 Enigma tăbliŃelor de la Tărtăria – SchiŃa preliminară, Timişoara,

2007, pp. 20-68. Popa 2005 Popa Ioan Cristian, Cugir-schiŃă monografică, Alba Iulia, 2005. Roman 2008 Roman C. Cristian, Habitatul umani din peşteriledin sud-vestul

Transilvaniei, Sibiu 2008. Roman-Diaconescu

2004 Roman Cristian-Constantin-Diaconescu Dragos, Cercetări arheologice la Ciulpăz-Peştera Bulgărelu (com. Peştişu Mic, jud. Hunedoara), în Corviniana VIII, 2004, 65-95.

Roska 1942a Roska Márton, Erdély régészeti repertoriuma, I, Öskor, (Thesaurus Antiquitatum Transsilvanicarum, I, Praehistorica), Cluj, 1942.

Radu 2002 Radu Adriana, Cultura SălcuŃa în Banat, Editura Banatica, ReşiŃa, 2002.

Rusu 1972 Rusu Mircea, ConsideraŃii asupra metalurgiei aurului în Transilvania în Bronz D şi Hallstatt A, în ActaMN 9 (1972), pp. 29-64.

Schachermeyr 1991 Schachermeyr Fritz, Die Neolitische Keramik Thessaliens, în Sammlung Fritz Schachermeyr, 1991,15-99.

Szentmiklosi- Drasovean

2004 Szentmiklosi, Alexandru, Draşovean, Florin, Arta prelucrării bronzului în Banat, Timisoara, 2004.

Tasić 1995 Tasić Nicola, The Eneolithic cultures of Central and West 'Balkans, Belgrad,1995.

Todorova 1981 Todorova Henrieta, Die Kupferzeitlichen Äxte und Beile in Bulgarien, în PBF IX, 14, München, 1981.

Topan-Lazarovici-Balint

1996 Topan Gheorghe; Lazarovici, Gheorghe; Balint, Adrian, Despre analizele metalografice ale unor topoare de aramă şi cupru arsenic, în ActaMN XXXIII, 1, 1996, pp. 635-646.

Vlassa 1964 Vlassa Nicolae, ContribuŃii la cunoasterea culturii Bodrogkeresztur in Transilvania, in SCIV 15, 1964, 3, pp. 351-367.

Vlassa 1967 Unele probleme ale neoliticului Transilvaniei, în ActaMN IV, 1967, pp. 403-423.

Vlassa 1976 Asezarea neolitică de la Dăbica, in Neoliticul Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca, 1976, pp. 142-160.

Vulpe 1973 Vulpe Alexandru, Începuturile metalurgiei aramei în spaŃiul carpato-dunărean, în SCIV 24, 2, 1973, pp. 217-237.

Vulpe 1975 Die Äxte und Beile in Rumänien, în PBF IX, 5, München, 1975. Yalçin 1999 Yalçin Ünsal, Anfänge der Metallverderwerung in Anatolien, în

Anatolian Metal I, pp. 17-31. RepAlba 1992 Repertoriul arheologic al judeŃului Alba, 1995.